FEEDBACK

3/23: Outraged on nuclear waste vote

To the editor:

Thank you for your article on 3/22 Packet on the votes of the S..C. House. My husband and I and friends were ooutraged at the vote to accept 100,000 more cubic feet of nuclear waste. Do those people have no conscience to take such actions?

The 3-2 vote for a development-backed bill to create relatively soft rules on development in wetland areas is a total farce since it just opens the door wide for developers to fill in and do their destructive thing. I hope that Gov. M.Sanford will veto the raid on the moneys for the Conservation Bank.
What can we as individuals do to let our Representatives know how strongly we disagree with their environmentally disastrous votes.

Thank you again for disclosing all that will make beautiful South Carolina less and less so. I am a transplant from the Northeast but have grown to love this state for its abundant natural beauty and want to do all to stop politicians who would want to do otherwise.

-- Doris McCullough, Hilton Head Island, SC

3/18: Altman is embarrassment

What an embarrassment for equality [SC Rep.] John Graham Altman is to the Charleston gay and lesbian community. His anti gay, deep-rooted hatred and disdain for gays and lesbians is unnerving and smacks of the same environment Hitler created when persecuting gays in Nazi Germany.

As a gay Christian, I am further incensed that so many on the religious right-(whose principles are neither religious nor right) have chosen him as their anointed leader....It is neither funny, macho or even cute that Mr. Altman is so very dismissive of gays, our lifestyles and our love for one another-in fact, it is juvenile. Mr. Altman often uses derogatory language in speaking about gays and lesbians and seems to enjoy his role as the new “moral leader.”

A closer look at his record legal and otherwise should expose this fraud as nothing more than a bigot, homophobe and frankly, a pathetic example of human service to his gay neighbors. Altman’s co-sponsorship of Bob Jones Graduate, Rep. Haskins anti gay-anti gay family bill, puts Altman in the same grouping as the other Bob Jones radicals in the Upstate -- something we Charlestonians did not vote to be part of.

-- Bryan Thompson, Charleston, S.C

3/15: Sanford is man of principle

Your column (SC Statehouse Report, 3/14) on Gov. Sanford ran in the Island Packet today. It seems you refuse even to consider that his veto of a "jobs bill" with " a lot of legislature Christmas gifts" could be based on principle and his policy beliefs. According to you, the veto was just a political maneuver on the assumption the legislature would override.

You obviously don't know the kind of man Mark Sanford is. You should take the time to read his book, "The Trust Committed To Me" in which he describes his life as a self term limiting Congressman and how he and a few others like him resisted the career politicians and their Christmas presents.

Presumably you are one who believed Mark Sanford couldn't win either the primary for Congress or the primary for Governor. Those endowed with political wisdom could not imagine the people of South Carolina could see the difference between a citizen office holder and the elite of the political class. But they did!

-- Herb Wiedemann, Hilton Head Island

Editor's Note: Sanford by law had 120 hours to veto the bill. He waited until the 119th hour to make the veto.

2/15: Preserving marriage isn't discrimination

To the editor:

In your opinion of 2/15/04, if you are trying to make a point by using the race issue it does not apply. Preserving the marriage institution as a union between a man and a woman is not blatant discrimination as you claim.

This country has been built on the family unit. The lynchpin of the family is the man and woman. The problems in this country from education, drugs &
crime, entertainment, and drugs in sports are blamed on the breakdown of the family structure. We are talking morals and values.

The marriage issue has to do with how families are going to find the answers to all the outside influences that are causing the younger generation to lose their way. The gays are the ones putting election year politics above the needs of the county.

-- Chuck Landau, Hilton Head, SC

2/15: Gay marriage issue is election-year politics

To the editor:

Marriage should be for people who make lifetime commitments to each other and actually intend to keep them. Gay people want only a single opportunity to pledge in their long-term relationships what Rep. [John Graham] Altman has pledged and breached at least twice in his own. And just how is it that Rep. Altman became the spokesperson for the institution of marriage in South Carolina anyway? Is there some "Frequent Flyer-type" program that the rest of us don't know about?

Any straight person in SC can have a few too many cocktails at the local pub, run to the nearest wedding chapel, parrot a few appropriate phrases and settle down for a week or so of wedded bliss and be in Divorce Court in a week. While the example may be a bit extreme, the ability of the straight couple to marry frivolously in SC is only exceeded by the couple's ability to divorce just as frivolously. The point is that with no forethought or public scrutiny whatsoever, the most frivolously married straight couple instantly receives 1,049 federal rights and benefits and hundreds more state benefits that are denied to gay couples. Many of those gay relationships have withstood the assaults of bigots like John Graham Altman III for thirty, forty and fifty years.

As parents of a gay son, we wish someone would explain to us how one human being loving another human being as much as our son loved his [late] partner in any way threatens the so-called sanctity of anyone's heterosexual marriage. The "sanctity of marriage" rallying cry is simply a sugar-coated justification for anti-gay legislation and gay-bashing...just as "state's rights" was a sugarcoated justification for segregation and lynching...and it is born of the same kind of hatred. It is a fraudulent issue.

The institution of marriage doesn't need protection from loving, caring gay South Carolinians like our son and his partner; it needs protection from demagogues and hypocrites like John Graham Altman III ....Mr. Altman and his cronies need to spend more time on real issues that deeply affect South Carolinians like paying off the $800 million budget deficit they ran up last year rather than grandstanding on the issue of this imaginary assault on the institution of marriage. If we can move SC beyond Altman's election year "chumming of the waters" on this issue, we might actually find that gay people do a better job of strengthening the institution of marriage than people like Rep. Altman do. They certainly couldn't do any worse.

-- James A. and Irene F. Smith, Charleston, SC

Editor's Note: This letter has been edited for length. Altman was not mentioned in the 2/15 story, but has been quoted in various media as opposing gay marriage. Also, the Smith's son, Charles, is an announced candidate seeking to replace Altman in the SC House.

2/15: Gay marriage would impact state

Your article which supposes that the gay marriage laws are only fluff and have no bearing on the function of our state are flawed. What you fail to recognize is that a marriage is also a state recognized relationship which has certain inherent rights and privileges. It would have a significant impact on SC businesses if all gay relationships had the right of survivorship, the tax advantages in probate, the life and health insurance benefits, and the right to retirement benefits of a gay partners, if all gay relationships were given the sanctity of marriage. These are enormous cost burdens on business alone, not even to mention the morality issues.

By declaring these issues as "GOP grandstanding" you have displayed not only your own bias, but your lack of understanding of the issues. There are natural limits imposed by God or nature, whichever you choose, that should be respected by all humans.

-- Stuart King, Florence, SC

2/9: One use for a proctologist

To the editor, regarding last week's seat belt column:

Why does this seem so reasonable and universally enforced except in SC? I know where to find the heads of the State Senators who are against this law however it would take a proctologist to extract them.

-- Name withheld upon request, San Diego, Calif.

2/8: Minibottles can be viewed in different lights

To the editor:

The mini-bottle issue has several viewpoints, including the quality and quantity of drinks served in public places. In addition to pouring spouts which are supposed to dispense one ounce, there are bar machines in existence that hold large bottles of alcoholic beverages (quarts and liters). The bartender or whoever has the key can program these machines to dispense a specific amount, e.g. one ounce or 3/4s of an ounce during "happy hours". Of course the same 3/4s of an ounce can also be served at ounce prices later in the day and night and thus the customer can be cheated. You can never be sure unless you stop to measure, which is hard to do when you order a mixed drink. As to quality, a customer can order a single malt Scotch (most expensive) and wind up with a multiple malt (of a lesser quality) unless he is a real Scotch taster, which most of us are not.

Restaurants with bar facilities have gotten away from opening the mini-bottle at the customers table (as is required by law, I believe). We should insist on that for quantity and quality purposes.

-- Francis X. Archibald, Hanahan, S.C.

1/19: Another aspect of tort reform

To the editor:

Maybe you'd like to address the venue "jury shopping" aspect of tort reform? Are the trucking and rail industries being dealt a fair hand when a majority of the cases are being tried in one small region?

-- State Rep. Bill Herbkersman, R-Bluffton

Editor's note: Rep. Herbkersman is referring to last week's discussion on tort reform, which we thought was being rushed in the House. We replied to him that all parts of the bills didn't seem bad, such as an end to venue shopping.

1/12: Libertarian wants to lower taxes

To the editor:

Our Revolutionaries revolted over a 3 percent tea tax. Now, government takes nearly half of our annual income!

The U.S. Government gave $1.6 billion to McDonald's, through the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture's Market Access Program, so it could advertise Big Macs in EUROPE! Won't you sleep more soundly tonight knowing that you paid for European McDonald's advertising, while your government continues to say that it needs even more money out of your paycheck to help balance the budget?

Campbell's Soup has received $300,000 in taxpayer money. IBM has received $1.4 BILLION. Ernest & Julio Gallo winery received $4.9 million. $671 million went to General Electric. $3 million went to the California Raisin Board.

Heck, the state government won't even allow me to make personal choices on where I will spend my own money (video poker), but they can take half of it, every year, and give it to big corporations--or use it to give CIA training, weapons and other aid to people like Osama bin Laden! Something's just not right about that.

I support the Libertarian philosophy of eliminating waste, redundant/ overlapping agencies, unnecessary bureaucracies and special-interest projects. People would have more money to save, invest and spend. With the increased demand for products and services, the job market would have to expand to keep up with it. Then, with increased numbers of jobs, there would be more people saving, spending and investing. The circle of prosperity continues.

That's the kind of America I want to live in.

-- Doug Kendall, Columbia

1/12: Leave Internet taxation alone

To the editor:

As the state has clearly not become dependent on it [Internet sales taxes, 1/11 column] now, the legislature could always examine the idea of leaving it in the hands of the people who earned it.

-- Stuart C. King, Florence, SC

1/11:Some of South Carolina's best policy/politics books

We asked a series of professors and political observers to send us some of their favorite fiction and nonfiction books on South Carolina politics and policy. While we didn't get any fiction nominations, here's a list of top books from several sources (in no particular order):

1. "Ol' Strom: An Unauthorized Biography of Strom Thurmond," by Jack Bass and Marilyn W. Thompson, Longstreet Press, 1998.

2. "Strom Thurmond and the Politics of Southern Change," by Nadine Cohodas, Simon & Schuster, 1993.

3. "The Case Against Hunger: The Need for a National Policy," by Ernest F. Hollings, Cowles Book Co., 1970.

4. "Against the Tide: One Woman's Political Struggle" by Harriet Keyserling, University of South Carolina Press, 1998. Foreward by Richard W. Riley.

5. "Banana Republic: A Year in the Heart of Myrtle Beach," by Will Moredock, Frontline Press, 2003.

6. "Porgy Comes Home: South Carolina After 300 Years," by Jack Bass, Sandlapper, 1970.

7. "South Carolina: A History," by Walter Edgar, USC Press, 1998.

8. "South Carolina Government: An Introduction," by Charlie Tyer, ed., USC Institute for Public Affairs, 2002.

9. "South Carolina Politics and Government (Politics and Governments of the American States)," by Cole Blease Graham and William V. Moore, Univ. of Nebraska Press, 1994.

10. "Government in the Palmetto State: Toward the 21st Century," Luther F. Carter and David Mann, eds., University of South Carolina, 1993.

11. "The Orangeburg Massacre," by Jack Bass and Jack Nelson, Mercer University Press, 1992.

12. "A South Carolina Chronology, 1497-1992, 2nd Ed.," by George C. Rogers Jr. & C. James Taylor, University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC, 1994.

13. "The Primary State - A History of the Democratic Party in South Carolina, 1876-1962," by Frank E. Jordan, Jr., Columbia, SC, 1967

14. "Red Hills and Cotton," by Ben Robertson, USC Press (reprint), 1991.

15. "Profits and Politics in Paradise: The Development of Hilton Head Island," by Michael N. Danielson, University of South Carolina Press, 1995.

Many thanks to those of you who supplied titles. If you have a book you'd like other readers to know about, send an email to: feedback@statehousereport.com